Well I'll wait until Congress comes back in session before I decide to panic but the case for war seems to be better this week and who knows it might be better once the UN comes back with its results. That being said it is interesting that France has decided it will do nothing if the US decides not to intervene. Too bad that would of been interesting, but Syria isn't small potato shiat like that stuff in Africa. Though some farkers were trying to suggest that France was the shiat, and didn't need nobody.

If we want to pull these stunts as a nation to make Syria sweat a bit, fine. But lets not actually do anything eh? We can't afford it, and we can't effectively change the region unless you want to create a glass parking lot.

fark with them, fine, actually bomb them, no.

And here I voted for this guy thinking he wouldn't pull this kind of crap...

Given Russia's aggressive posturing over the whole thing, the Israel angle, the numerous other conflicts that are ongoing in the region, this is not exactly a far-fetched possibility. It's not nearly as "simple" as Iraq was as far as geopolitical alignments are involved.

That said, WWIII this is unlikely to become. I think it would be more likely to happen if AQ got their hands on a large amount of chemical weapons as we'd see their attacks become a lot more devastating and see a much worse response from the first world.

FTFYNote: 1955 President Eisenhower sent the first military advisers to South Vietnam to train the ARVN.

Never mind that all the Republican wars were fights we picked against pip-squeaks, and had no real important value to the American people. This is what validates my thinking that bullies are also pretty stupid - and usually end up being conservatives.

This. We're talking about a Clinton vs. Iraq missile attack, and nothing more. Syria's talking noise about taking things regional, but they can barely handle the fight they're in the middle of now. They're dropping land mines from helicopters, because they're run out of real weapons.

mediablitz:We've found the ONE THING Republicans will agree with Obama on. Killing...

Obama: I want to bomb the crap out of SyriaGOP: We must stand against you. You know, it's sort of our thing.Obama: But they used chemical weapons!GOP: Yeah, but we really hate you!Obama: If we don't follow through, we will lose credibility!GOP: Sorry, we hate you more than we love our country.Obama: Listen, I want to bomb BROWN people who aren't Christians!!!!GOP: Ohhhhh. Why didn't you say so! That's a horse of a different color!!!!

Obama should have never give that "Don't cross this line" BS about the use of chemical weapons. Well they caled his bluff and made him look bad in front of his woman, so now he has to cut a motherfarker. All I wonder is will it be a "symbolic" bombing where a few radar stations, bridges a airfield or two are bombed. Or will they go after the chemical weapon stockpiles.

Weaver95:So when the GOP leadership says they stand for something...like say bombing Syria...that doesn't mean the GOP is in favor of said action? If the GOP leadership isn't actually running the republican party than who is? I'd really like to know!

This may be confusing but the GOP doesn't walk lock step behind the leadership. I would love for Boehner to find a way to shut this down. But frankly I don't think he has the intelligence or the will to thwart the Democrats. The Democrats will get the war they want. I really dont want to believe that anyone wants to start a war, but the President is making it very difficult to argue otherwise.

They have a tall order trying to convince the rank and file in the GOP that this is a good idea. I really hope they don't. Best case in my eyes is we stay the hell out of there. But I think the President is going to go no matter what. He all but said it in this speech in the Rose Garden.

I said this in the last Syria thread, but I'm so annoyed by this drumbeat of inevitability that I'm going to re-post.

Turn whatever evidence you have over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them.

Meanwhile, use all of our fancy stealth tech to carpet-bomb Syria, regime & rebel areas alike, with medical supplies & food. Make like Syria's borders don't even exist. If you really must blow something up, target aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. Cap it off by throwing a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps.

Completely disregarding Syria's sovereignty make Assad look powerless, while any kind of military strike he survives will just make him look stronger.It's a clear answer, which should save face re: Obama's "red line", and such an approach should sail through congress. If the UN and Arab States want to biatch about 'unilateral action' or colonialism, let them; it'll come off as completely ridiculous. And hell, in the end, we might actually help a kid or two.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, we should act like a parent. Why are we not at least considering some non-deadly response?

So when AQ gets their hands on some Sarin after we collapse Assad, and they kill several thousand americans with it, can we try Odumbo for war crimes and genocide? Because then he'd have the Big Jackass Double then. Nobel Peace Prize and the McHitler with cheese.

cameroncrazy1984:Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!Bombing Libya will start WWIII!I swear I see that wolf right over there!

A side track, but for what it's worth, The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a cautionary tale to both children, advocating not making light of grevious situations, and to parents, advocating taking a serious threat seriously, even if past actions suggest that the seriouness may be overplayed, or even non-existant.

It's the reason why first responders will always take a bomb threat seriously, even if the facility/location/caller has a history of making false claims.

So, being wrong on threat of WMD trageting Americans or our allies in Iraq does not mean we should ignore the potential future threat of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons being used against the US or its Allies.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Weaver95: So when the GOP leadership says they stand for something...like say bombing Syria...that doesn't mean the GOP is in favor of said action? If the GOP leadership isn't actually running the republican party than who is? I'd really like to know!

This may be confusing but the GOP doesn't walk lock step behind the leadership. I would love for Boehner to find a way to shut this down. But frankly I don't think he has the intelligence or the will to thwart the Democrats. The Democrats will get the war they want. I really dont want to believe that anyone wants to start a war, but the President is making it very difficult to argue otherwise.

They have a tall order trying to convince the rank and file in the GOP that this is a good idea. I really hope they don't. Best case in my eyes is we stay the hell out of there. But I think the President is going to go no matter what. He all but said it in this speech in the Rose Garden.

The GOP isn't in lockstep?! Which GOP are you talking about anyways because the republicans in THIS country are in ideological lockstep every bit of the way and on every issue. If you don't follow orders you get fired. Period.

Obama sucks at this. Where are the Rape Rooms? The Mobile Bio Weapons Labs? The yellowcake? The poor, oppressed Syrian people that we supposedly give a rat's ass about? Dick Cheney would have lit that place on fire by now.

This incompetent empty-suit can't even get Republicans to support a war. WTF is this guy's problem?

Weaver95:The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Well the article DOES talk about the GOP so...yeah, I guess it's fair to call them out on this issue.

Well the article calls out Democrats as well, but no mention of this being a Democrats' war?

Per normal the Republicans can't get their shiat together and the Democrats are going to get their way, much to the detriment of the American people.

Um...you do realize the GOP wants this war, right? Looks like both parties want to keep blowing shiat up. So here we are, bipartisan cooperation at last. Ain't we lucky?

I gotta believe that the thought that Iran might get pulled in has got some folks really rooting to bomb the shiat out of Syria. I can hear that old hit song playing in the halls of Congress right now: bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

SpectroBoy:mediablitz: We've found the ONE THING Republicans will agree with Obama on. Killing...

Obama: I want to bomb the crap out of SyriaGOP: We must stand against you. You know, it's sort of our thing.Obama: But they used chemical weapons!GOP: Yeah, but we really hate you!Obama: If we don't follow through, we will lose credibility!GOP: Sorry, we hate you more than we love our country.Obama: Listen, I want to bomb BROWN people who aren't Christians!!!!GOP: Ohhhhh. Why didn't you say so! That's a horse of a different color!!!!

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 375x325]

An odd thing to post in a story about the Republican speaker supporting Obama.

Lt. Cheese Weasel:So when AQ gets their hands on some Sarin after we collapse Assad, and they kill several thousand americans with it, can we try Odumbo for war crimes and genocide? Because then he'd have the Big Jackass Double then. Nobel Peace Prize and the McHitler with cheese.

I know this is unusual but I'm giving you a field promotion from Lt. C. Weasel toGeneral Whaarrgharble.

groppet:Obama should have never give that "Don't cross this line" BS about the use of chemical weapons. Well they caled his bluff and made him look bad in front of his woman, so now he has to cut a motherfarker. All I wonder is will it be a "symbolic" bombing where a few radar stations, bridges a airfield or two are bombed. Or will they go after the chemical weapon stockpiles.

/would rather not be involved

It seems that attacking chemical weapons stockpiles would mean having to use airplanes rather than cruise missiles. You'd need a big bomb to crack a presumably fortified plant, followed by napalm to incinerate the chemical weapons. To use aircraft might mean softening up Syria's anti-aircraft capabilities.

Given Russia's aggressive posturing over the whole thing, the Israel angle, the numerous other conflicts that are ongoing in the region, this is not exactly a far-fetched possibility. It's not nearly as "simple" as Iraq was as far as geopolitical alignments are involved.

That said, WWIII this is unlikely to become. I think it would be more likely to happen if AQ got their hands on a large amount of chemical weapons as we'd see their attacks become a lot more devastating and see a much worse response from the first world.

Dude, no. In no way, shape or form will this cause a larger war. You guys need to get some perspective.

nekom:Does he have the votes? It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't. Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

Said what, that he'll "support" Obama? Note the quote: "I am going to support the president's call for action," he told reporters. "I believe my colleagues should support this call for action." That's not a guarantee, nor does it even say that Boehner is going to work for passage, it's a statement of Boehner's personal support. If Obama wants to get it passed, he'd better be doing some heavy-duty lobbying about now and not just sitting back waiting for somebody else to do the work.

Cyberluddite:Sliding Carp: mediablitz: We've found the ONE THING Republicans will agree with Obama on. Killing...

Oh, they'll be against it as soon as the pictures of dead kids in rubble show up.

Depends on whether the kids are brown or not. If not, it'll be a "horrible tragedy." If so, it'll be "collateral damage" that, while regrettable, is a necessary component of bringing freedom to the ignorant savages.

Perhaps Boner's goal here is to end up with Obama vilified. Because no matter how obvious, or how popular, Boner's been determined to block anything and everything coming through there. Why is THIS the exception??